Seminar on pplications of Mathematics: Voting ED Hong Kong Science Museum, 2-2-2009 Ng Tuen Wai, Department of Mathematics, HKU http://hkumath.hku.hk/~ntw/voting(ed2-2-2009).pdf
Outline Examples of voting system What should be an ideal voting system? rrow's Impossibility Theorem Main idea of the proof of rrow's Impossibility Theorem Yes-no voting systems and the dimension of these systems. How to quantify political power? Examples of power indices and their applications to the LEGO voting system.
Simple majority vote for two candidates When there are only two candidates or alternatives, we can simply use the simple majority vote. The situation is much more complicated if we have at least three candidates or alternatives.
Voting Paradox Suppose we have three candidates,, and, and that there are three voters with preferences as follows: Voter 1: > > Voter 2: >> Voter 3: >> For vs, wins (2 to 1) For vs, wins (2 to 1) For vs, wins (2 to 1) Therefore, the requirement of majority rule then provides no clear winner. This is paradoxical, because it means that majority wishes can be in conflict with each other.
Individual Preferences D E M F M F E M Social hoice Theory Voting System or Social hoice Procedure Social choice theory studies a given voting system or social choice procedure and describe how individual preferences are aggregated to form a collective preference. Vote Outcome or Social hoice/social hoice List D F M
Who is your favorite hero? E D
What is your preference? My preference list is > D > > > E How to determine who is the most popular hero?
Example 1: Suppose we have 55 students and assume their preferences are recorded in the following table. hoice students 18 12 10 9 4 2 1 st hoice D E E 2 nd hoice D E 3 rd hoice E D E E D D 4 th hoice D 5 th hoice
How to determine who is the most popular hero? Individual Preferences D D E E E D Voting System or Social hoice Procedure Vote Outcome or Social hoice D E We shall illustrate the five common social choice procedures with this single example.
Social hoice Procedure 1: Plurality Voting Plurality voting is the social choice procedure that most directly generalizes the idea of simple majority vote from the easy case of two candidates to the complicated case of three or more candidates. The idea is simply to declare as the social choice(s) the candidate with the largest number of first-place rankings in the individual preference lists.
Social hoice Procedure 1: Plurality Voting hoice students 18 12 10 9 4 2 1 st hoice D E E 2 nd hoice D E 3 rd hoice E D E E D D 4 th hoice D 5 th hoice Since candidate occurs at the top of the most lists(18), it is the social choice when the plurality method is used.
Social hoice Procedure 2: The orda ount First introduced by Jean-harles de orda in 1781, the social choice procedure known as the orda count. It is popular in situations where one really wants to take advantage of the information regarding individual intensity of preference provided by looking at how high up in an individual s preference list of a given candidate occurs.
Social hoice Procedure 2: The orda ount More precisely, one uses each preference list to award points to each of n candidates as follows: the candidate at the bottom of the list gets one points, the candidate at the next to the bottom spot gets two points and so on up to the top candidate on the list which gets n points. For each candidate, we simply add up the points awarded it from each of the individual preference lists. The candidate(s) with the highest score is declared to be the social choice.
hoice 1 st hoice 2 nd hoice 3 rd hoice 4 th hoice 5 th hoice students 18 D E 12 E D 10 : (5) (18) + (1) (12 + 10 + 9 + 4 + 2) = 127 : (5) (12) + (4) (10 + 4) + (2) (2 + 9) + (1) (18) = 156 : (5) (10) + (4) (9 + 2) + (2) (18 + 12 + 4) = 162 D : (5) (9) + (4) (18) + (3) (12 + 4 + 2) + (2) + (10) = 191 E : (5) (4 + 2) + (4) (12) + (3) (18 + 10 + 9) = 189 andidate D wins! E D 9 D E 4 E D 2 E D
Social hoice Procedure 3: The Hare System The Hare procedure was introduced by Thomas Hare in 1861, and is also known as the single transferable vote system. In 1862, John Stuart Mill spoke of it as being among the greatest improvements yet made in the theory and practice of government. Today, it is used to elect public officials in ustralia, Malta, The Republic of Ireland, and Northern Ireland.
The Hare system is based on the idea of arriving at a social choice by successive deletions of less desirable candidates. More precisely, the procedure is as follows. If any candidate occurs at the top of at least half the preference lists, then it is declared to be the social choice (or at least tied for such), and the process is completed. If no candidate is on top of half of the lists, then we select the candidate(s) occurring at the top of the fewest lists and we delete this (these) particular candidate(s) from each of the preference lists.
Social hoice Procedure 3: The Hare System t this stage we have lists that are at least one candidate shorter than that with which we started. Now, we simply repeat the same process for the revised list. The procedure stops when either some candidate is on top of at least half of the (shortened) lists, or when all the remaining candidates occur at the top of exactly the same number of lists (in which case this set of candidates is declared to be the social choice set).
hoice students 18 12 10 9 4 2 1 st hoice D E E 2 nd hoice D E 3 rd hoice E D E E D D 4 th hoice D 5 th hoice Since there are 55 students, at least 28 are needed for a majority. Notice that no candidate is on top of at least 28 of the lists, we therefore delete the candidate which is on top of the fewest lists. Delete andidate E!
hoice students 18 12 10 9 4 2 1 st hoice D 2 nd hoice D D D D 3 rd hoice D 4 th hoice D 18 16 12 8 gain no candidate is on top of at least 28 of the lists, we therefore delete the candidate which is on top of the fewest lists. Delete andidate D!
hoice students 18 12 10 9 4 2 1 st hoice 2 nd hoice 3 rd hoice 18 16 21 gain no candidate is on top of at least 28 of the lists, we therefore delete the candidate which is on top of the fewest lists. Delete andidate!
hoice students 18 12 10 9 4 2 1 st hoice 2 nd hoice 18 37 Since candidate is on top of at least 28 of the lists, candidate is the social choice when the Hare procedure is used. andidate wins!
Social hoice Procedure 4: Sequential Pairwise Voting with a Fixed genda We have a fixed ordering of the candidates [,,,... ] called the agenda. The first candidate in the ordering is pitted against the second in the kind of one-on-one contest. The winning candidate (or both, if there is a tie) is then pitted against the third candidate in the list in a one-on-one contest.
Social hoice Procedure 4: Sequential Pairwise Voting with a Fixed genda candidate is deleted at the end of any round in which it loses a one-on-one contest. The process is continued along the agenda until the survivors have finally met the last candidate in the agenda. Those remaining at the end are declared to be the social choices.
hoice students 18 12 10 9 4 2 1 st hoice D E E 2 nd hoice D E 3 rd hoice E D E E D D 4 th hoice D 5 th hoice vs : Since > is equal to 18, wins and we delete. vs : Since > is equal to 16, wins and we delete. vs D: Since > D is equal to 12, D wins and we delete. D vs E: Since D > E is equal to 27, E wins and we delete D. andidate E wins!
We have seen that for candidate, D, and E, there is at least one social choice procedure or voting system making it the social choice. Is there a voting system making (Wonder Woman) the social choice?
Social hoice Procedure 5: Dictatorship hoose one of the people, say p and call this person p the dictator. The procedure now runs as follows. Given the sequence of individual preference lists, we simply ignore all the lists except that of the dictator p. The candidate on top of p's list is now declared to be the social choice.
hoice students 18 12 10 9 4 2 1 st hoice D E E 2 nd hoice D E 3 rd hoice E D E E D D 4 th hoice D 5 th hoice There are 12 students whose preference list is > E > D > >. Pick any one of the 12 students to be the dictator, then the social choice is simply the candidate on top of his list, namely candidate. andidate wins!
Which social choice procedure should we use? Our five examples of social choice procedure yield five different social choices when confronted by these particular preference list. This raises the question of whether some procedures might be strictly better than others. ut better in what ways?
Four desirable properties of social choice procedure Pareto ondition Independence of irrelevant candidates/alternatives (II/II) Monotonicity Nondictatorship
Who is Kenneth rrow? Kenneth Joseph rrow is an merican economist who was considered as the founder of modern voting theory or social choice theory He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1972 on his work in social choice theory. (1921--)
Who is Kenneth rrow? In 1950, he proved the celebrated rrow's Impossibility Theorem in the paper " Difficulty in the oncept of Social Welfare", Journal of Political Economy 58(4) (ugust, 1950), pp. 328 346 He was then awarded a PhD thesis from olumbia University in 1951.
What is rrow's Impossibility Theorem? rrow's theorem can be loosely interpreted as no voting method is ideal. More precisely, if there are more than three candidates to choose from, no voting method can convert the preferences of individuals to a community-wide ranking, while also meeting the four desirable criteria.
rrow's Impossibility Theorem Theorem (rrow, 1950) ny social choice procedure for more than two candidates satisfying the Pareto condition, independence of irrelevant candidates, and monotonicity is a dictatorship. orollary There is no social choice procedure for more than two candidates satisfying the Pareto condition, independence of irrelevant candidates, monotonicity and nondictatorship.
Four Desirable riteria We will use the notation > to denote is ranked above. Pareto ondition If > in all individual preference lists, then > in the social preference list. [ If everyone prefers to, then the society prefers to.]
Pareto ondition If a > b in all individual preference lists, then a > b in the social preference list. Illustration Suppose the set of candidates is {,, }, the set of voters is {P,Q,R} and their preference lists are: P : > >, Q : > >, R : > >. Note that in each individual preference, >. Pareto condition then says that we would have > in the social preference list.
Four Desirable riteria Independence of Irrelevant andidates (II) The relative position between candidate and in the social preference list does not depends on the positions of other candidates in the individual preference lists. [ If is preferable to when is absent, then is still preferable to when is present.]
Independence of Irrelevant andidates (II) Illustration O = [ P : >, Q : >, R : >]. Suppose we insert another candidate into the above sequence and obtain the following two sequences M and N of individual preference lists. M = [ P : > >, Q : > >, R : > >]. N = [ P : > >, Q : > >, R : > > ]. II says that the relative position of and in the social preference list should be the same as that of O in these two cases.
Four Desirable riteria Monotonicity ny individual should not be able to hurt an candidate by ranking it higher. [If the society prefers X to Y, and an individual who once prefers Y to X now places X higher than Y, then the society should still prefer X to Y.]
Illustration Monotonicity ny individual should not be able to hurt an candidate by ranking it higher. Suppose we have two sequences of individual preference lists. M = [P : > >, Q : > >, R : > >]. N = [P : > >, Q : > >, R : > > ]. The two sequences M and N are the same except Q raises 's ranking in sequence N. Monotonicity then says that the ranking of in the social preference list produced by sequence N should not be lower than that produced by sequence M.
Dictating Set Definition Suppose X is a subset of the set of voters, and and are two distinct candidates. We say X can force > if > in every individual preference list of X implies > in the social preference list. Definition set X is a dictating set if for any distinct candidates and, X can force >.
Dictator Exercise: Show that if X is the set of all individuals, then X is a dictating set if the voting procedure satisfies Pareto condition. Definition If p is one of the individuals and X is the set consisting of p alone, then p is called a dictator. Nondictatorship No individual can be a dictator.
Some idea why rrow's Impossibility Theorem is true Paul: > > ; Mary: > > ; Jack: > > In this example, everybody agrees >, so by Pareto ondition, > in the social preference list. Then there are three choices of possible of social preference list, namely case i) >> case ii) >> case iii) >>
Some idea why rrow's Impossibility Theorem is true Paul: > > ; Mary: > > ; Jack: > > Suppose the social preference list is > > (i.e. case i). In this case we claim that Paul is indeed the dictator.
Given that the social preference list for the sequence Paul: > > ; Mary: > > ; Jack: > > is > >. We first show that for each of the following four sequences of preference list, the social preference list is still > >. Paul: > > ; Mary: > > ; Jack: > > Paul: > > ; Mary: > > ; Jack: > > Paul: > > ; Mary: > > ; Jack: > > Paul: > > ; Mary: > > ; Jack: > >
Original sequence O=[Paul: > > ; Mary: > > ; Jack: > > ] onsider the first sequence: M=[Paul: > > ; Mary: > > ; Jack: > > ] learly, by Pareto condition, we have > in the social preference list of M. Take away, then the two sequences O and M become the sequence N=[Paul: > ; Mary: > ; Jack: > ]. ccording to II, the relative position of and in the social preference list of N, M and O should be the same. Since in the social preference list of O, we have >, we also have > in the social preference list of M. Therefore, the social preference list of M is still > >.
M=[Paul: > > ; Mary: > > ; Jack: > > ] The social preference list of M is > >. onsider the second sequence P=[Paul: > > ; Mary: > > ; Jack: > > ] learly, by Pareto condition, we have > in the social preference list of P. omparing P with M, by Monotonicity, we can conclude that the social preference list of P is still > >.
Similarly, by Monotonicity, we can show that for the last two of the following four sequences of preference list, the social preference is still > >. Paul: > > ; Mary: > > ; Jack: > > Paul: > > ; Mary: > > ; Jack: > > Paul: > > ; Mary: > > ; Jack: > > Paul: > > ; Mary: > > ; Jack: > >
Given that the social preference list for the sequence O=[Paul: > > ; Mary: > > ; Jack: > > ] is >>. We have proven that for each of the following four sequences of preference list, the social preference list is still > >. Paul: > > ; Mary: > > ; Jack: > > Paul: > > ; Mary: > > ; Jack: > > Paul: > > ; Mary: > > ; Jack: > > Paul: > > ; Mary: > > ; Jack: > >
Removing and consider the following four sequences Paul: > ; Mary: > ; Jack: > Paul: > ; Mary: > ; Jack: > Paul: > ; Mary: > ; Jack: > Paul: > ; Mary: > ; Jack: > Then each of them has a social preference list equal to >. This is because if we have > instead, then when we add back to obtain the previous four sequences, by Independent of Irrelevant andidates (II), we will have > in their social preference list which is a contraction.
rrow's Impossibility Theorem Paul: > ; Mary: > ; Jack: > Paul: > ; Mary: > ; Jack: > Paul: > ; Mary: > ; Jack: > Paul: > ; Mary: > ; Jack: > We find that > in the society preference list as soon as Paul prefers to! onclusion: Paul is the dictator in the society!!!
Reference lan D. Taylor, Mathematics and Politics: Strategy, Voting, Power and Proof, (1995) Springer-Verlag. Jonathan K. Hodge, The Mathematics of Voting and Elections: Hands-On pproach, (2005), merican Mathematical Society. Donald G. Saari, haotic elections! : a mathematician looks at voting, merican Mathematical Society, 2001. Donald G. Saari, Hidden Mathematical Structures of Voting, Mathematics and Democracy, Springer erlin, 2006. Kenneth J. rrow, Social choice and individual values, (1951, first edition, 1963 second edition), New York,Wiley.
rrow's Impossibility Theorem Theorem (rrow, 1950) ny social choice procedure for more than two candidates satisfying the Pareto condition, independence of irrelevant candidates, and monotonicity is a dictatorship. Note that rrow s theorem doesn t say that a dictatorship procedure will satisfy the Pareto condition, independence of irrelevant candidates, and monotonicity. We shall see later that it is indeed the case.
rrow's Impossibility Theorem Proposition: The dictatorship procedure satisfies the Pareto condition. Proof. If everyone prefers to, then, in particular, the dictator does. Therefore, > in the social preference list.
Exercises: i) Show that the dictatorship procedure satisfies the independence of irrelevant candidates, and monotonicity. ii) Determine if the sequential pair-wise voting with a fixed agenda satisfies the independence of irrelevant candidates. Explain your answer carefully.
Strategies in voting Suppose we have three voters,, and two candidates O and N. The preference lists of, and are recorded below. hoice Voter 1 st hoice N N O 2 nd hoice O O N learly s choice O will not be the social choice if we use Simple majority vote.
learly s choice O will not be the social choice. However, can then propose a new candidate M in so that we have the following preference lists hoice Voter 1 st hoice M N O 2 nd hoice N O M 3 rd hoice O M N
If we use the sequential pair-wise voting with the agenda [M, N, O], then O will be the social choice!. 1 st round 1 2 2 nd round N 1 M 2 N O M O
Yes-No Voting In a yes-no voting system, each voter either responded with a vote of yes or no. The system also specifies exactly which collections of yes votes yield passage of the motion at hand.
Yes-No Voting In a yes-no voting system, any collection of voters is called a coalition. coalition is said to be winning if passage is guaranteed by yea votes from exactly the voters in that coalition. oalitions that are not winning are called losing. Every yes-no voting system can be described by simply listing the winning coalitions. onversely, any collection of subsets of voters gives us a yes-no voting system, although most of the systems arrived at in this way would be of little interest.
Examples of Yes-No Voting System United Nations Security ouncil The United Federal System The System to mend the anadian onstitution The Legislative ouncil of HKSR (LEGO)
The United Nations Security ouncil The voters in this system are the fifteen countries that make up the security ouncil, five of which (hina, England, France, Russia, and the United States) are called permanent members whereas the other ten are called nonpermanent members. Passage requires a total of at least nine of the fifteen possible votes, subject to a veto due to a nay vote from anyone of the five permanent members. Remark. For simplicity, we ignore the possibility of abstentions in the following discussions.
The United States Federal System There are 537 voters in this yes-no voting system: 435 members of the House of Representatives, 100 members of the Senate, the vice president, and the president. The vice president plays the role of tiebreaker in the Senate, and the president has veto power that can be overridden by a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate.
Thus, for a bill to pass it must be supported by either: 1. 218 or more representatives and 51 or more senators (with or without the vice president) and the president. 2. 218 or more representatives and 50 senators and the vice president and the president. 3. 290 or more representatives and 67 or more senators (with or without either the vice president or the president).
The System to mend the anadian onstitution Since 1982, an amendment to the anadian onstitution becomes law only if it is approved by at least seven of the ten anadian provinces subject to the proviso that the approving provinces have, among them, at least half of anada s population. For our purposes, it will suffice to work with the following population percentages (taken from the 1961census) for the ten anadian provinces:
Prince Edward Island (l%) Newfoundland (3%) New runswick (3%) Nova Scotia (4%) Manitoba (5%) Saskatchewan (5%) lberta (7%) ritish olumbia (9%) Quebec (29%) Ontario (34%)
LEGO In LEGO, the 60 Members are divided into two groups: 30 Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, and 30 Members by functional constituencies. bill will pass if (a) the bill is proposed by the government and it is supported by more than 30 members, or (b) the bill is proposed by a LEGO member and it is supported by more then 15 members from each group.
LEGO In order to transform it into a usual yes-no voting system, we introduce a virtual member who supports a bill if and only if it is proposed by the government. In other world, it is an invisible government representative in LEGO. The 30 members by geographical constituencies are numbered 1,...,30, the 30 members by functional constituencies are numbered 31,,60 and the virtual member is numbered 61.
Yes-No Voting Every yes-no voting system can be described by simply listing the winning coalitions. Therefore, a yes-no voting system of n persons is a set V of subsets of {1,,n}. Each element of V is called a winning coalition. We shall identify a subset S of {1,...,n} with the vector (s_1,,s_n) with s_i=1 if i is inside S and s_i=0 if i is not in S.
LEGO subset S is a winning coalition if (a) 61 in S and S {1,,60} 31, or (b) 61 is outside S, S {1,,30} 16 and S {16,,60} 16.
Weighted system yes-no voting system is said to be a weighted system if it can be described by specifying real number weights for the voters and a real number quota---with no provisos or mention of veto power---such that a coalition is winning precisely when the sum of the weights of the voters in the coalition meets or exceeds the quota.
Example. The U.N. Security ouncil is a weighted system. Proof. ssign weight 7 to each permanent member and weight 1 to each nonpermanent member. Let the quota be 39. We must now show that each winning coalition in the U.N. Security ouncil has weight at least 39, and that each losing coalition has weight at most 38.
winning coalition in the U.N. Security ouncil must contain all five permanent members (a total weight of 35) and at least four nonpermanent members (an additional weight of 4). Hence, any winning coalition meets or exceeds the quota of 39. losing coalition, on the other hand, either omits a permanent member, and thus has weight at most ( 7 4) + (1 10) = 28 + 10 = 38
or contains at most three nonpermanent members, and thus has weight at most ( 7 5) + (1 3) = 35 + 3 = 38. Hence, any losing coalition falls short of the quota of 39. This completes the proof. Question: Is every yes-no voting system a weighted system?
Trade Robust System yes-no voting system is said to be trade robust if an arbitrary exchange of voters among several winning coalitions leaves at least one of the coalitions winning. Referring to the LEGO example, suppose there are 2 winning coalitions X and Y, where X consists of 31 LEGO members and Y consists of 32 LEGO. members. If 3 unique voters in X are exchanged with 10 unique voters in Y, resulting in 38 voters in X and 25 voters in Y. Then X is still a winning coalition.
Weighted Vs Trade Robust Theorem. yes-no voting system is weighted if and only if it is trade robust. Remark. The System to mend the anadian onstitution is not trade robust and therefore it is not weighted.
The System to mend the anadian onstitution is not trade Robust X: Prince Edward Island (l%), Newfoundland (3%), Manitoba (5%),Saskatchewan (5%),lberta (7%),ritish olumbia (9%),Quebec (29%) Y: New runswick (3%),Nova Scotia (4%), Manitoba (5%), Saskatchewan (5%) lberta (7%),ritish olumbia (9%),Ontario (34%) Now let X and Y be obtained by trading Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland for Ontario. Then X is a losing coalition because is has too few provinces, while Y is also losing as it represents less than half of anada s population.
PROPOSITION. Suppose V is a yes-no voting system for the set X of voters, and let m be the number of losing coalitions in V. Then it is possible to find m weighted voting systems with the same set X of voters such that a coalition is winning in V if and only if it is winning in every one of these m weighted systems. Thus, the set of winning coalitions in V is the intersection of the sets of winning coalitions from these m weighted voting systems.
Since we have a proposition that guarantees every yes-no voting system can be represented as the intersection of weighted systems, it is natural to ask how efficiently this can be done for a given system. This leads to the following definition. DEFINITION. yes-no voting system is said to be of dimension k if and only if it can be represented as the intersection of exactly k weighted voting systems, but not as the intersection of k - 1 weighted voting systems.
Notice that a yes-no voting system is of dimension 1 if and only if it is weighted. We have already proved that the procedure to amend the anadian constitution is of dimension at least 2. One can actually prove that the dimension is equal to 2. Moreover, we also have PROPOSITION. The U.S. federal system has dimension 2.
Dimension of a voting system It turns out that for each positive integer k, there is a voting system of dimension k. However in the end of Section 8.3 of lan Taylor s book Mathematics and Politics, it is stated that ``we know of no real-world voting system of dimension 3''. It was proven recently by my colleague Wai Shun heung that the LEGO voting system is of dimension 3.
How to measure political power? It is well-known that the number of parliamentary seats for a party in a multiparty system is an inaccurate measure for the effective voting strength of that party. To illustrate this point in a simple way, consider an imaginary parliament consisting of three parties a, b and c each having, respectively, 74, 2 and 74 seats. t first sight, parties a and c, each with 74 seats, seem to be far more powerful than party b with only two seats. However, this is not the case.
How to measure political power? Suppose that the absolute majority rule is in use so that to forma majority coalition, at least 76 seats are necessary. The majority coalitions then are {a, b}, {a, c}, {b, c} and {a, b, c}, and we see that party b is in as many winning coalitions as the two other parties. Moreover, it can make as many coalitions losing or winning as the other parties. This strongly indicates that party b is not inferior to the other parties in terms of voting strength.
How to measure political power? Hard to be quantified. Does not exist a universal way to calculate political power. So, different ideas lead to different power indices: a) Shapley-Shubik Index of Power (SSI) [1954] b) anzhaf Index of Power (I) [1979] c) Deegan-Packel Index of Power (DPI) [1978]
Shapley-Shubik Index of Power (SSI) The pivotal player is the one whose joining converts the growing coalition from a losing one to a winning one ( p) SSI = the number of orderings of X for which p is pivotal the total number of possible orderings of the set X
Shapley-Shubik Index of Power (SSI) My colleague Wai Shun heung has tried to quantify the power of the government within LEGO by considering the most common power index, the Shapley-Shubik Index.
anzhaf Index of Power (I) TP(p), is the number of coalitions where: 1. p is a member of. 2. is a winning coalition. 3. If p is deleted from, the resulting coalition is not a winning one. I(p 1 ) = TP( p 1 TP( p 1 ) ) +... + TP( p n )
Deegan-Packel Index of Power 1, 2, j the minimal winning coalitions in a yes-no voting system V to which a voter (1 voter) or a bloc (p voters), say x, belongs. Take n 1 (no. of voters) in 1, n 2 2, n j j TDPP(x) = p n k DPI (x i ) = TDPP( x TDPP( x i ) ) +... + TDPP( x 1 n )
Deegan-Packel Index of Power This index was introduced in 1978 by Deegan and Packel. They designed this based on 3 assumptions: i) only minimal winning coalitions should be considered. ii) all minimal winning coalitions form with equal probability. iii) the amount of power a player derives from belonging to some minimal winning coalition is the same as that derived by any other player belonging to that same minimal winning coalition.
The Legislative ouncil in Hong Kong (2004-2008) Political Parties: Liberal Party (8,2) Democratic lliance for the etterment of Hong Kong (D) (2,8) Democratic Party (2,7) ivic Party (3,3) Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) (2,1) Hong Kong onfederation of Trade Unions (HKTU) (0,2) 20 Individuals (13, 7)
power indices of different parties in the HKL 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 1. In general, a bigger bloc has a larger power. 2. Different concepts yield different result SSI I DPI 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LP D DP P HKFTU HKTU Ind.
When comes to the non-weighted part 0.25 0.2 Power indices of parties in HKL (2) 3.Though both has 10 voters, power are not the same. 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 1 2 DP 3 4 5 6 7 8 LP D P 4. ut DPI, HKTU has a slightly higher power than HKFTU! HKFTU HKTU F (Ind.) G (Ind.) SSI DPI
onclusion From this as well as the other studies, it is known that one can distinguish two classes of power indices. The first class contains the Shapley-Shubik, the normalized anzhaf and the Penrose-anzhaf index while the second contains the Deegan- Packel and the Holler index.
Reference: lan D. Taylor, Mathematics and Politics. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., 1995. Wai Shun heung, Three-Dimensional Voting System in Hong Kong, 2009 (preprint). drian van Deemen1 and gnieszka Rusinowska, Paradoxes of Voting Power in Dutch Politics, Public choice, Volume 115, Numbers 1-2, 2003. Legislative ouncil: www.legco.gov.hk Thank You!